Noometry

Model comparison

GPT-4.1 nano vs Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 27.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

GPT-4.1 nano OpenAI

27.9

Rank #327 Confirmed

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)

39.4

Rank #168 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-4.1 nano scores higher in 0 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct in 8 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads 26.4 to 8.5.
  • Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GPT-4.1 nanoOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
ProviderOpenAIAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index27.939.4
Released2025-04-14—
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M—
Max output33K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.10—
Output $ / M tokens$0.40—
Results tracked3816

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 24.1 (#330), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Coding13061347
Aider Polyglot8.9%—
SciCode25.9%—
WeirdML19%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 26.5 (#104), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard33%—

Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 8.5 (#349), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts12861322
ARC-AGI-20%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark33.3%—
ARC-AGI-10%—
CritPt0%—
DTBench52.5%—
LMCA5.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index129.62—

Math Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 26.9 (#252), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Math12741305
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202528.9%—
Omni-MATH36.7%—
MATH Level 570%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)1%—

Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 21.8 (#273), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Expert12721308
GPQA Diamond48.9%—
SimpleQA Verified6%—
MMLU-Pro55%—
GPQA (HELM)50.7%—

Multimodal Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 29.2 (#113), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Vision1063—

Multilingual Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 41.6 (#205), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Non-English12601275
LMArena Chinese12701304
LMArena German12881282
LMArena Russian12611268
LMArena French—1328
LMArena Japanese1198—
LMArena Korean—1206
LMArena Spanish—1336

Instruction Following Too close to call

GPT-4.1 nano: 67.8 (#193), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following12671299
IFEval84.3%—

Long Context Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 23.7 (#296), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Longer Query12831312
Fiction.LiveBench25%—

Writing & Preference Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 40.5 (#243), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Text12851311
LMArena Creative Writing12601264
LMArena Multi-Turn12771309
EQ-Bench Creative Writing946—
WildBench81.2%—

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-4.1 nano better than Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct?

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 27.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is GPT-4.1 nano or Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better for coding?

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 24.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GPT-4.1 nano and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-4.1 nano has 38 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16.

Related comparisons

Go deeper